- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The History and SCOTUS rulings on Anchor babies.... Facts matter:
Posted on 10/30/18 at 8:24 pm to buckeye_vol
Posted on 10/30/18 at 8:24 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
But as it pertains to "citizenship by birth" the law just restates the 14th Amendment.
Right. And trumps interpretation of “under the jurisdiction” does not include children born of illegal aliens who are citizens of foreign countries. It’s an interpretation that the courts should rule on.
1
Posted on 10/30/18 at 8:32 pm to Jjdoc
quote:But you're wrong. They didn't exclude Native Americans as a universal ethnic exclusion, they excluded those (the vast majority) who fell under the sovereignty of the Tribal nations who are explicitly delineated as a seperate group twice (commerce clause and appropriations) in Article 1 of the Constitution, later defined by SCOTUS as "domestic dependent nations" decades before the 14th Amendment. And they were later separated in Section 2 of the 14th Amendment (Indians not taxed).
Again... It's why the Indian was NOT given citizenship and Congress was forced to act under their CONSTITUTIONAL POWER.
But regardless, Congress passed a law to allow their citizenship, and they passed the 1952 Immigration Act which includes "those born within the United States."
So if they were excluded by the 14th Amendment, then they were included under the 1952 Act, like Indians had been earlier. So then the only viable recourse is either SCOTUS to decide they were of aren't excluded under the 14th, and if so, then Congress would have to Amend the law or create a new one and exclude them (or vice versa and amend it then SCOTUS could decide).
Regardless, an EO is not the way to go, and I doubt it would even get instituted in the first place.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 8:38 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:So ICE works for the Legislative Branch? Of course not.
n the case of Citizenship, Naturalization of Citizenship is a power exclusive to Congress
US Customs work for the Legislative Branch? Of course not.
US Border Patrol works for the Legislative Branch? Of course not
Posted on 10/30/18 at 8:45 pm to BBONDS25
quote:But it's "under the JURISDICTION THEREOF" which literally means "as a result of the Citizenship."
Right. And trumps interpretation of “under the jurisdiction”
Posted on 10/30/18 at 8:47 pm to Jjdoc
While the matter is not nearly so clear as JJDoc has presented, it is somewhat disconcerting to see him making cogent, well-reasoned arguments.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 8:51 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:What? They work to enforce the LAWS the legislative branch creates.
So ICE works for the Legislative Branch? Of course not.
US Customs work for the Legislative Branch? Of course not.
US Border Patrol works for the Legislative Branch? Of course not
The legislative branch already created the laws, which specifically grants citizenship to anyone born in the United States.
Now you could argue that the Constitution does not make that mandatory, but that would still require legislative action.
The EO would be counter to the current law. The Constitutionality of excluding anchor babies, is therefore secondary to the unconstitutional directive itself.
JJDOC's arguments are at least about whether Anchor babies are broadly included under the Constitution and subsequent case law, even if he's not citing the actual opinions of the case itself. The EO issue seems so glaringly unconstitutional (e.g., he's creating law counter to existing law), that I'm really surprised by your argument.
This post was edited on 10/30/18 at 8:55 pm
Posted on 10/30/18 at 9:02 pm to buckeye_vol
No, 52 used the same language. That was based on prior rulings and understanding.
An EO is the perfect way to get this to the SCOTUS quickly. The pressure will mount. Remember, the Scotus refused to take up DACA...
Wont happen this time.
An EO is the perfect way to get this to the SCOTUS quickly. The pressure will mount. Remember, the Scotus refused to take up DACA...
Wont happen this time.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 9:08 pm to Jjdoc
quote:Maybe because they thought that either it wasn't worth the Constitutional fight when it was a far broader law, they wanted them included, and/or they didn't think they had the authority to limit the rights and would lose anyways.
No, 52 used the same language. That was based on prior rulings and understanding.
Regardless, they used the broadest language, and explicitly denoted exceptions and requirements for naturalization of other groups, but did not include anything to even make anchor babies a possible exception for enforcement whatsoever.
quote:It will get there quickly, but I question whether it will be about the issue of anchor babies, when there is an issue of Constitutional powers that they would have to consider first.
An EO is the perfect way to get this to the SCOTUS quickly.
quote:And that was an issue of Constitutional powers anyways.
Remember, the Scotus refused to take up DACA...
They may eventually rule on anchor babies but I don't see how an EO would be the pathway. It would most likely need to come from legislation.
This post was edited on 10/30/18 at 9:13 pm
Posted on 10/30/18 at 9:12 pm to buckeye_vol
Btw... it 100% under the executive branch via the dept of homeland security
Posted on 10/30/18 at 9:13 pm to Jjdoc
Media awfully silent about this.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 9:16 pm to Jjdoc
quote:What does that mean? Homeland Security can't make broad exceptions to law counter to the law itself, especially a law that already includes the exceptions and qualifications as is.
Btw... it 100% under the executive branch via the dept of homeland security
They can't create laws and then use their enforcement powers to justify it, even though they probably try.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 9:18 pm to Ancient Astronaut
quote:There are plenty of stories about it, but it's from an interview with Trump.
Media awfully silent about this.
Personally, I don't think an EO to specifically ban birthright citizenship is actually in the works. I think it's more likely they are pursuing other avenues with more solid legal standing to make it harder or discourage it somehow.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 9:36 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
since it's referring to the jurisdiction that results from the Citizenship itsel
No it doesn't. It's saying a person both born here and subject to the jurisdiction of.
It's an and not an or
Posted on 10/30/18 at 9:44 pm to buckeye_vol
I’ve got a number of problems using the Ark case as a precedent for the children of illegal immigrants. Here’s the holding:
The opinion of the court also considers as a factor for determining citizenship that:
Distinguishing factors:
1) Illegal immigrants who come here for the express purpose of having a child here are likely neither domiciled here nor residents here
2) coming here illegally can hardly be interpreted as an allegiance to the United States
quote:
A child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and are there carrying on business and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The opinion of the court also considers as a factor for determining citizenship that:
quote:
neither [Wong Kim Ark] nor his parents acting for him ever renounced his allegiance to the United States
Distinguishing factors:
1) Illegal immigrants who come here for the express purpose of having a child here are likely neither domiciled here nor residents here
2) coming here illegally can hardly be interpreted as an allegiance to the United States
Posted on 10/30/18 at 9:57 pm to Mr.Perfect
quote:Thereof is the key word which means "from that cause" and/or "of or about the thing just mentioned."
No it doesn't. It's saying a person both born here and subject to the jurisdiction of.
It's an and not an or
So the text states "these are the citizens, and they are under the Jurisdiction as a result of that citizenship."
If they left out the "thereof" then it would make sense the other way around, except then that would make Naturalization a strange process since they aren't really under the full jurdisriction that citizens are afforded.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 10:07 pm to RedStickBR
quote:No. Which is why it doesn't apply to them, although I'm sure many would happily pledged it if given the opportunity.
coming here illegally can hardly be interpreted as an allegiance to the United States
And since no newborn can pledge allegiance to a nation, I'm not sure what basis for that requirement my son has than if I had brought him here and I was an illegal immigrant. In fact, I would be more likely to have thought about that than I did when he was born since I don't think it ever crossed my mind.
Now I'm actually thinking citizenship should be something that is offered when one actually reaches 18 when they are offered one of the major benefits (voting) and the requirements (registration for service). Just streamline it (e.g., consent to citizenship and the responsibilities of it) for those who would have been given it automatically.
This seems exteme, but if allegiance is a key, then shouldn't that an issue always, and can only be settled when one is capable to consent to such a thing?
Posted on 10/30/18 at 10:15 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
This seems exteme, but if allegiance is a key, then shouldn't that an issue always, and can only be settled when one is capable to consent to such a thing?
We are very close to being on the same page on the allegiance point; however, read the snippet I quoted again and tell me upon this second reading if you notice anything.
Posted on 10/31/18 at 3:58 am to buckeye_vol
quote:100% False by any measure or any interpretation.
The legislative branch already created the laws, which specifically grants citizenship to anyone born in the United States.
Posted on 10/31/18 at 5:24 am to Jjdoc
Anchor babies, as we know them, usually born of illegal aliens from Mexico or some other shite-hole South American country, costs us dearly. Once they squirt out on our soil they are entitled to all benefits that true citizens of the U.S. are afforded and their parents get to stay with them and suck off us, too. This insane practice is a burden to our tax coffers on state and federal levels. Time to end this ridiculous law that was put in to help slaves and children of slaves in a dark time of our history. End this, NOW!
Posted on 10/31/18 at 9:38 am to buckeye_vol
quote:
Thereof is the key word which means "from that cause" and/or "of or about the thing just mentioned.
Where do you come up with this stuff man.
quote:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
Must be born on US soil.
Must be subject to US jurisdiction at the time
Must have a location where you reside in the US (a state)
A person who walks over and squirts out a baby, the baby meets only one of three. the Parent meets none so they cant convey residency to the kid like a citizen can.
This post was edited on 10/31/18 at 9:40 am
Page 4 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News